Tests failing on SSHFS

[PlasmaPower]

All of these issues have been fixed in #1373.

• No ACLs: KeyError: 'acl_access' pops up a bunch - also present on ntfs-3g (see Tests failing on ntfs-3g #1363)

• No FIFOs:

          # FIFO node
  >       os.mkfifo(os.path.join(self.input_path, 'fifo1'))
  E       PermissionError: [Errno 1] Operation not permitted
  
  .tox/py35/lib/python3.5/site-packages/borg/testsuite/archiver.py:290: PermissionError
  

• No unix sockets:

          sock = socket.socket(socket.AF_UNIX, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
  >       sock.bind(os.path.join(self.input_path, 'unix-socket'))
  E       PermissionError: [Errno 1] Operation not permitted
  
  .tox/py35/lib/python3.5/site-packages/borg/testsuite/archiver.py:377: PermissionError
  

• No hardlinks:

              self.cmd('extract', self.repository_location + '::test', '--strip-components', '2')
  >           assert os.stat('hardlink').st_nlink == 2
  E           AssertionError: assert 1 == 2
  
  .tox/py35/lib/python3.5/site-packages/borg/testsuite/archiver.py:563: AssertionError
  

These should be fixed before #1359 is merged.

[PlasmaPower]

To solve these issues, should we check the name of the FS or try to detect which features it supports?

[enkore]

Feature detection is preferable imho.

[PlasmaPower]

Of course, but it would be substantially harder, especially with #1363 with the permission and mode stuff.

Maybe have flags which we can manually set per FS name?

[PlasmaPower]

Maybe we could test for support of ACLs, hard links, unix sockets, and FIFOs, but use the name to determine if permissions and modes are reasonable?

[enkore]

Yeah, the errors you got are in create_test_files (or setUp) or so anyway, which also does the have_root detection.

I don't know any simple/specific way (a syscall) to get the FS name, so parsing of mount(8) should be conservative I think.

[PlasmaPower]

@enkore I think we could parse /proc/mounts which shouldn't be too bad (it's meant to be parsed).

[enkore]

Looking at the couple different systems here (solaris, oi, bsds) I'd say now that neither mount(8) nor /proc/mounts is a feasible idea.

Since this is mostly about the FS tests for vagrant I'd say it would be simpler and far more robust to just explicitly disable tests that would fail on the specific FS being tested right now - which is something the test driver script knows with absolute certainty.

[PlasmaPower]

So maybe pass in an ENV variable DISABLE_FS_MODE_TESTS?

[enkore]

No need, you should be able to pass them directly through to py.test through tox. Something like tox ... -- borg.testsuite -k 'not ...' -k 'not ...'

[PlasmaPower]

I'm not sure specific test names should be in the test driver script, especially given the amount of tests that need to be skipped. We could consider putting them in a separate text file, but I think they'd fit better in the code.

[enkore]

These four here can be done with feature detection, the others well... the borg.testsuite doesn't really need to know about more exotic FSes at least not by name. So it would seem reasonable to me to keep the test-skip-list in the script used to test exotic FSes.

IOW the testsuite doesn't need to work out of the box with every possible FS. It's ok (at least for me) if there are some tests that fail on some FSes, that are then skipped by the "exotic FS test driver" script.

[PlasmaPower]

There are a lot of tests that fail with bad permissions or modes though. I'd like an ENV variable DISABLE_FS_MODE_TESTS, and then we could do @unittests.skipif("os.environ['DISABLE_FS_MODE_TESTS']"). I think it makes more sense to put the disablers next to the tests than in a completely different file, it will help when tests change.